[RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Apr 23 00:09:15 PDT 2007


On Friday April 20 2007 17:55, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use
> the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses.  Note also that CLFS
> uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more
> architectures still.
>
> Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
> purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at
> all in its current form, I'd like to drop it.  As the ticket mentions, the
> correct way to implement this, according to upstream, is to have the kernel
> make the processor type available via a syscall.
>
> Thoughts, comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.

The Posix standard for the uname utility and the utsname structure are not 
identical... the standard for the uname utility allows for "machine class" 
and "processor type", which are not supplied by utsname. So according to the 
Posix standard, the uname utility is expected to somehow detect the processor 
type without help from the kernel, and this is impossible to do in a portable 
way.

The Linux kernel team can't add the processor type to utsname without 
violating standards. They could however add it somewhere else.

robert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20070423/ca9166af/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list